Such structure includes sewers and sewerage disposal plants and systems, parks, playgrounds, and other recreational works, refineries, chemical plants and similar industrial plants requiring specialized engineering knowledge and skills, powerhouse, power plants and other utility plants and installation, mines and metallurgical plants, cement and concrete works in connection with the above-mentioned fixed works.
This is no surprise, because harder evidence of a technical nature points to an inside leak, not hacking — by Russians or anyone else. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has joined other senators in calling for a bipartisan investigation of suspected cyber-intrusion by Russia.
Reading our short memo could save the Senate from endemic partisanship, expense and unnecessary delay. In what follows, we draw on decades of senior-level experience — with emphasis on cyber-intelligence and security — to cut through uninformed, largely partisan fog.
Far from hiding behind anonymity, we are proud to speak out with the hope of gaining an audience appropriate to what we merit — given our long labors in government and other areas of technology. And corny though it may sound these days, our ethos as intelligence professionals remains, simply, to tell it like it is — without fear or favor.
We have gone through the various claims about hacking. The email disclosures in question are the result of a leak, not a hack.
When someone physically takes data out of an organization and gives it to some other person or organization, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did. When someone in a remote location electronically penetrates operating systems, firewalls or any other cyber-protection system and then extracts data.
All signs point to leaking, not hacking. If hacking were involved, the National Security Agency would know it — and know both sender and recipient.
In short, since leaking requires physically removing data — on a thumb drive, for example — the only way such data can be copied and removed, with no electronic trace of what has left the server, is via a physical storage device.
These include at least 30 companies in the U. This gives NSA unparalleled access to data flowing within the U. These data transfers carry destination addresses in what are called packets, which enable the transfer to be traced and followed through the network.
Emails being passed across the World Wide Web are broken down into smaller segments called packets. These packets are passed into the network to be delivered to a recipient. This means the packets need to be reassembled at the receiving end.
To accomplish this, all the packets that form a message are assigned an identifying number that enables the receiving end to collect them for reassembly.
Moreover, each packet carries the originator and ultimate receiver Internet protocol number either IPV4 or IPV6 that enables the network to route data. When email packets leave the U. These collection resources are extensive [see attached NSA slides 12345 ]; they include hundreds of trace route programs that trace the path of packets going across the network and tens of thousands of hardware and software implants in switches and servers that manage the network.
Any emails being extracted from one server going to another would be, at least in part, recognizable and traceable by all these resources.
This process can sometimes require a closer look into the routing to sort out intermediate clients, but in the end sender and recipient can be traced across the network.
The various ways in which usually anonymous spokespeople for U. The evidence that should be there is absent; otherwise, it would surely be brought forward, since this could be done without any danger to sources and methods. Thus, we conclude that the emails were leaked by an insider — as was the case with Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning.
Such an insider could be anyone in a government department or agency with access to NSA databases, or perhaps someone within the DNC.
Thus, it remains something of a mystery why the media is being fed strange stories about hacking that have no basis in fact.The tax research memo on this web site illustrates one way in which tax research can be documented and communicated. Before reviewing this memo, study the lesson for writing a research memo, read the fact scenario we provide, complete the research, and write a .
1. Introduction. This bibliographic essay collects scholarly, government and professional sources in an effort to show how court-ordered human-rights based decisions and legislative responses in U.S.
nationality law, coupled with an American notion of nationality as “allegiance” and accidents of history in matters of taxation and a longstanding principle of "citizenship-based taxation. The LawPhil Project.
NUMBER SUBJECT MATTER ADDRESSEE; No. November 14, Taxability of FRINGE BENEFIT TAX. The Malta Institute of Accountants Technical and Educational initiatives Jonathan Dingli MIA Technical Director. Additional tools ; VIES VAT number validation. You can verify the validity of a VAT number issued by any Member State by selecting that Member State from the drop-down menu provided, and entering the number to be validated.
Monday’s Washington Post reports that Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has joined other senators in calling for a bipartisan investigation of.